COP28: Let us listen to the countries that lead on deforestation

The COP28 conference this year has been organized around four cross-cutting themes aimed at tackling the causes of climate change and managing the impacts of a warming planet: Technology and Innovation; Inclusion; Frontline Communities, and Finance, writes Jan Zahradil, MEP and vice chairman of the European Parliament’s international trade committee.

Brazil is a new convert, but nonetheless a pivotal player in the global climate change dialogue due to its vast Amazon rainforest. During a panel session at the COP28 climate summit  in Dubai, Brazil’s Environment Minister introduced "Tropical Forests Forever”, an initiative aiming to secure $250 billion for the protection and restoration of the world's tropical forests.

The proposal outlines a global fund to finance forest conservation, with the ambitious goal of raising funds from sovereign wealth funds, investors, even the oil industry. Under the proposal, a fund would be created to offer compensation to residents and landowners who help preserve forested areas such as the Amazon.

The maintenance of wooded areas — particularly the rainforests of Brazil, Southeast Asia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and another 80 countries— is crucial in the fight against climate change because of their vital role in absorbing and storing large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions.

This proposal aligns with Brazil’s recent efforts to combat deforestation, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pledging “zero deforestation and degradation of biomes” by 2030.

The biomes, however, are typically populated by poorer citizens, for whom the extractive industries that fuel deforestation — such as logging and gold mining — offer more enticing economic opportunities. COP28’s thematic focus on Inclusion and Frontline Communities begins to seem less like vacuous wokeism in this light, and more like pragmatism. In the case of Brazil, the CO₂ released by deforestation accounts for about half of the country’s total emissions.

The solutions imposed internationally, such as by the EU and US sustainable forestry regulations, impose, in many cases, perverse incentives.

They prohibit from placing products on the EU market coming from deforested areas, but they do not compensate those who are already doing the right thing and keeping primeval rainforests intact. The same rules often hinder sustainable producers as well as those deforesting illegally.

The investment fund, if created, would provide a set rate of return, with any additional returns going not to shareholders but to local stakeholders to maintain the natural environment. It’s not completely clear that this cap is a good idea.

After all, capped rates of return deter even the largest of institutional investors, and will inevitably reduce the amount of finance available to stop deforestation.

But this perhaps misses the goal – to convince the public and the global community that this scheme is morally pure and shows Brazil turning over a new leaf, metaphorically speaking. After years of devastating land clearances, coming to a shocking climax of environmental destruction under Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency, Brazil is keen to put right its reputation. But it is not the only country doing so.

Again, in perfect keeping with the four COP28 themes, Malaysia’s approach is another example of grassroots initiatives replacing top-down international heavy-handedness. There, the goal has been to integrate local opportunities into the forested lands, building an economy that sustains and benefits from natural forests in a circular manner.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the exact same goal set by the EU for its own forests in its New EU Forest Strategy 2030. The EU (and, to a lesser extent, the US) have been taking note from developing countries like Malaysia and Brazil – and that’s no bad thing.

Progress that is realistic, that puts money back on the table to compensate those living near rainforests that have come to rely upon exploiting them for their livelihoods, and engages with communities to build new industries in their place.

Lula has cut the rate of deforestation by 50%, while Malaysia has reduced primary forest loss by 70percent between 2014 and 2020. In the latter case, the Malaysians have turned products like palm oil and timber into environmentally friendly ones. Local knowledge and progress have been able to make improvements thought impossible.  

It's important to understand that this kind of progress and building of knowledge doesn’t come from a place of international altruism. These countries do not need EU or anybody else to tell them to act, their populations are first affected and concerned.

Flooding threatened agricultural production, politicians and citizens decried the loss of natural heritage, while economic imperatives meant a new kind of solution was needed. Malays had even more reason to halt deforestation than we did in the West – and they have. The World Resources Institute concludes that “Malaysia should be included as a success” and “palm oil is no longer a driver of deforestation”.

Both countries’ efforts demonstrate that it is possible to earn economic growth with environmental sustainability.

It’s the only kind of ‘sustainability’ that’s really lives up to the name – since without economic viability, generosity without results will soon dry up.

The lesson, and our hope for COP28, is that we in the Europe and the West must learn from the experience and knowledge acquired in the global south. Let the results do the talking – we might just make some progress this year.

Share this article: